If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Their attitude towards and embracing of DLC, social gaming, and the like kinda contradicts this idea.

Yeah, thats basically what gundato said just moments before ;D

Either way, with the sims, they're sitting on one of the most expanded popular games ever. The jump to DLC (even though it hasnt hit sims in a big way yet, there are still people I know that buy "offline" versions of those expansions) seems a natural one.
Some games the DLC is properly implemented, like Mass Effect 3, in others, they seem not much less than cashgrabs.

To be fair, THQ wasnt much better with Saints Row 3's DLC, which was mostly superficial items.

"Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it." - The Conclave

The problem is always there, even with Valve's Steam. The fear that they can take away things you have bought and paid for is very real and not at all irrational. I was very uncomfortable clicking "Agree" when they wrote their new legal waiver barring class action suits. It has the very real potential to turn into something really, really ugly.

The only reason I've been harsher on EA for things like this is because they have actually done some stupid things with their EULAs. People have gotten bans and suspensions for things as minor as avatars a moderator didn't like - which lock them out of their games. That's overstepping the boundaries of sensible behavior. Even to this day the language on their data collection is vague and leaves a lot of questions about what they can and can't search through - a very sharp contrast to Valve's self-imposed restrictions on "only if it's related to your hardware and games". If they don't intend to monitor anything else, why isn't it in writing?

I still make it a point to always look for games without DRM attached to them. There are people who post things like "No Steam, no buy!" (especially on the PC Gamer boards) and it baffles me. Why would you require a DRM method shackled to your game? It's not intrusive and annoying DRM (yet) but it is very much DRM.

Steam has earned a reputation as being mostly inoffensive and sometimes useful (its matchmaking works well). But we'd all do well to remember it's still a form of DRM.

As for the legality issue I have no idea how relevant EULAs would be in court. We've not reached that point yet.

Fantasy flight pretty much dominate the market and essentially have control of most of the popular franchises (Star Wars, GoT, etc, etc) they're hardly as risk of financial failure or given the physical nature of their products of mass counterfeiting/reproduction to the extent of video games. CD projekt released The Witcher 2 without any notable DRM and yet by their own estimates 4 out of every 5 copies played were pirated. At what point do we say the shopkeeper is entitled to secure their goods? Sure it's fair to say that not every pirated copy is a lost sale, but similarly it has to be also acknowledged that when push comes to shove that if no piracy option were available that a certain % of those players might have coughed up for the game instead. There is an impact, we might not be able to define it exactly, but we cannot blithely dismiss it.

Video games is an expensive business, and for developers to continue to make games and publishers to continue to backing them, then there has to be a degree of profitability to the operation and keep[ the wheels turning. For every MW, there's a good half dozen KoA.

The shop owner has every right to secure their goods. To make sure those goods are paid for. To make sure no one is stealing from them. I wholly agree with this sentiment, though I too believe some gamers will simply never buy a game and will always resort to piracy. Nonetheless, those who put in the time and effort to create a game - and to market and distribute that game - deserve to get paid for doing so.

But the consumer also deserves to own merchandise they have paid money for. Regardless of whether that merchandise is digital or physical, the consumer deserves protection, too. I deserve to know that I will always be able to play games on Steam or Origon, regardless of whether EA or Valve goes out of business 10 years from now. I paid for the goods, I should be able to use them.

And I should be able to use them in any way I see fit. So long as I am not profiting from someone else's hard work - or helping others to do so - I should be able to play a game the way I want to play the game. These are, after all, games and not books. Or movies. If i want to edit ini files or tweak game settings I should be allowed to do so. IF you want to bar me from then redistributing the product you produced in my changed form, I will have to live with that, since to do elsewise would be to, in essence, profit from or gain notoriety due to someone else's work. Regardless of the rules regarding distribution, however, once I buy a game - or a gaming console - I should be able to do with that game or device as I please. Since, you know, ownership.

Your making out as if the game coming with multi-player options is some how a burden, but I'm not really seeing how? I don't play XCOM multi-player either (because I rarely have the time for multi-player anything these days), but I don't begrudge those who can and do the opportunity.[/QUOTE]

Multiplayer becomes a burden once Publishers begin using it as a crutch in order to prevent people from altering their own personal, single player experience in order to heighten their enjoyment of the game. If you do not want me using mods in multiplayer, fine. When and IF I choose to play multiplayer, THEN you can overwrite my modified ini file (looking at you, XCOM/Firaxis). But refusing to allow me to mod my own single player experience because you tacked on (yet another) multiplayer afterthought to yet another single player game...no. Just...no. The game belongs to me, I own it and once I own it, I will alter, modify, tweak and house rule it any damned way I please. If i cannot redistribute "my version" fine, but that should not prevent me from having "my version" of a product I own.

Or we can just prevent people from putting after market rims on a car, or a book jacket on a favorite hard back novel. Since, you know, they too are altering someone else's product.

Multiplayer becomes a burden once Publishers begin using it as a crutch in order to prevent people from altering their own personal, single player experience in order to heighten their enjoyment of the game. If you do not want me using mods in multiplayer, fine. When and IF I choose to play multiplayer, THEN you can overwrite my modified ini file (looking at you, XCOM/Firaxis). But refusing to allow me to mod my own single player experience because you tacked on (yet another) multiplayer afterthought to yet another single player game...no. Just...no. The game belongs to me, I own it and once I own it, I will alter, modify, tweak and house rule it any damned way I please. If i cannot redistribute "my version" fine, but that should not prevent me from having "my version" of a product I own.

Or we can just prevent people from putting after market rims on a car, or a book jacket on a favorite hard back novel. Since, you know, they too are altering someone else's product.

I'm guessing it's a fear that if players are able to modify the single player it'll be substantially easier for them to modify how the game works in multiplayer as well.

The best way to handle this I believe would be to just allow mod support that keep modded servers separate. This of course costs time and money for development, but doesn't that lead to happier customers who then will have a more positive outlook on the developer and publisher which means more future sales?

The problem is always there, even with Valve's Steam. The fear that they can take away things you have bought and paid for is very real and not at all irrational. I was very uncomfortable clicking "Agree" when they wrote their new legal waiver barring class action suits. It has the very real potential to turn into something really, really ugly.

I think it is irrational though, and, again, the slippery slope fallacy. Yes, it's a possibility, but not really a probability. Steam/EA or whoever would never do that sort of thing in large numbers... yes, they give themselves the option to, or the right to, in the EULA or subscriber agreement, but that's so, if they need to do it in the event of fraud or something similar, they've got a little legality behind them, and can point the offender in the direction of the clause. The numbers of people this sort of thing happens to when it shouldn't, is vanishingly small and is usually a result of some overzealous/power-hungry moderator, or a cock-up. If you consider the sheer number of people who use things like Steam (6.5 million people online right now) and Origin, compared to the mere handful of these incidents, it really doesn't seem rational to consider it a real threat.

I know you like that example of "no drm != more sales", but first of all, that's a weird number, I highly doubt the accuracy of it, also, it doesn't take in account purchases made afterwards. For example, I know people that downloaded the game and bought it later when the enhanced edition came around. I played around with the idea, but decided to just wait. I would have ended up on the 4vs1 list, even though I bought it anyway. I have downloaded games I didn't buy often enough, and almost all games I did play this way I ended up owning. And no, I would have never put down the money for them at release prices. For sure.

I think it's an interesting example simply because CD Projekt have made big play about being DRM free Vs other digital platforms with their GoG catalogue, and are largely heralded as heroes accordingly, but the plain truth of the matter is it didn't cut them any favours in terms of overall piracy levels with the general public. Sure I don't doubt that a certain percentage of people bought the game after having pirated it, but at the same time given it's well know that most people don't finish games one has to wonder just how low a percentage that might actually be?

The bulk of a games profitability lies with its first few weeks of release and its success or failure in terms of sales at that point in time can massively impact its future, both as a franchise and of its developer. For all the plaudits people might throw as VTM:B or Alpha Protocol neither of those games sold particularly well to the extent that Troika went belly up having failed to secure a new contract and Alpha Protocol turned out to be Michael Thorton's first and last outing. Now I certainly don't claim that either of those occurrence's was the resultant of game piracy, I'm using them more to highlight how key those initial sales are in terms of the future prospects for both developers and franchises in that embryonic launch period . It's not the Assassins creeds, Mass Effects or GTA Vs that are at risk from piracy (titles of that scale & scope will always be profitable) it's the lower level ones hoping to build a fan base that are. The ones where that initial success or failure can make the difference between a pay cheque or cleared desk the following week.

EA clearly is not dependent on such a model and are one of the more progressive publishers (actually, they always HAVE been, it is just that people hate EA because they are the big dogs and didn't follow through on some IPs they purchased).

EA has been publishing a lot of indie titles over the years and they are well on their way to a "digital only" presence in PC gaming.[/COLOR]

I will admit that I have been a bit out of the loop in this regards and if anything has changed over the last 18 months or so I was not aware. Not to say that I'm not pleasantly surprised that they're choosing to evolve, but the other problems I brought up regarding questionable lawsuits and runaway DRM still need to be addressed.

I think it is irrational though, and, again, the slippery slope fallacy. [...] If you consider the sheer number of people who use things like Steam (6.5 million people online right now) and Origin, compared to the mere handful of these incidents, it really doesn't seem rational to consider it a real threat.

I agree in part - the chances of something going so horribly wrong are fairly remote, both for EA and Steam. As you say, what cases there have been (more guilt on EA's side than Valve's, though I do remember someone posting here who lost their entire account on Steam but they were involved in dodgy gifting systems) have usually been rectified if they seemed too heavy handed, and they were isolated. However we should probably question why they need such a clause in the first place.

The question I put to you is this: What breach of the EULA would you consider to be so great that a person should lose access to all games they paid money to 'subscribe' to? I use the term 'subscribe' since it's what Valve use in their EULA; we never purchase games on Steam, we just subscribe to them. Honestly, I can't think of any reason to totally remove a person from their account. Banning from the store? From trading? From online gameplay? Sure. But from everything they subscribed to? No.

Originally Posted by Shooop

The fear that they can take away things you have bought and paid for is very real and not at all irrational.

Exactly. There's no real need for it.

Originally Posted by Shooop

Even to this day the language on their data collection is vague and leaves a lot of questions about what they can and can't search through

It's not really that ambiguous, the activity is fairly well described on their FAQ page. They don't collect any personal information or anything of that sort. The scanning behaviour relates to checking files in game directories for patching. The other accusations of spyware date from November 2011. Since then it hasn't been demonstrated to be malicious. Incidentally, Valve's hardware survey does collect more information than strictly necessary for Steam, or your games, etc. In 2010 they compiled a list of software present on users' computers. I'm not sure if how many people have MS Office installed is really relevant to gaming...

With that said I don't remember if, at the time, you had to specifically consent to the software collection part.

A EULA can't over rule your consumer rights, in the same way that a person can't write a contract with another person that essentially bypasses standard laws. By on large they're written with a view of providing the company with broad protections in the likelihood they need to instigate them in some manner, even if they're nor necessarily enforceable from a wider legal perspective. A lot of it is 'reserve the right to' . If the house rules say, you're not to wear shoes whilst on the premises and the house reserves the right to eject you if you don't oblige, then by you agreeing to the house rules you agree not to wear shoes whilst on the premises. So if they find you walking around inside with shoes on ...you've essentially broken the agreement and they're within their rights to reject you accordingly. From a legal perspective they're in the right. However it if were a case that they said not only would you be ejected, but you'd also have to pay $5000, then a legal question would exist over the extent of the fine in terms of justification. A judge would want to know the reason why $5000 from the house.

The issue is that 'consumer rights' and civil courts are difficult to bring to bear.

Becasue if EA, Steam or whoever pull theplug on the service they provide it is you who has to go to the pains to take them to court.

No one's gonna do that. So EULAs are basically a company's way of having a document to point to to say "told you so" so you can't proceed through their internal complaints system.

The question I put to you is this: What breach of the EULA would you consider to be so great that a person should lose access to all games they paid money to 'subscribe' to? I use the term 'subscribe' since it's what Valve use in their EULA; we never purchase games on Steam, we just subscribe to them. Honestly, I can't think of any reason to totally remove a person from their account. Banning from the store? From trading? From online gameplay? Sure. But from everything they subscribed to? No.

Illegal activity, since they're required under law to take action (credit card fraud would be the most likely there). Abuse of the service. Considering the EULA terms generally amount to "don't be a dick", I don't really see a problem with banning someone for breaching them.

Originally Posted by Cooper

The issue is that 'consumer rights' and civil courts are difficult to bring to bear.

Becasue if EA, Steam or whoever pull theplug on the service they provide it is you who has to go to the pains to take them to court.

If EA, Steam or whoever pulled the plug then there's nothing you could do anyway; service providers have a right to terminate their service, at least in the private sector.

I think it is irrational though, and, again, the slippery slope fallacy. Yes, it's a possibility, but not really a probability. Steam/EA or whoever would never do that sort of thing in large numbers... yes, they give themselves the option to, or the right to, in the EULA or subscriber agreement, but that's so, if they need to do it in the event of fraud or something similar, they've got a little legality behind them, and can point the offender in the direction of the clause. The numbers of people this sort of thing happens to when it shouldn't, is vanishingly small and is usually a result of some overzealous/power-hungry moderator, or a cock-up. If you consider the sheer number of people who use things like Steam (6.5 million people online right now) and Origin, compared to the mere handful of these incidents, it really doesn't seem rational to consider it a real threat.

You're right that it's definitely not probable en masse. But that it actually does happen means the system's flawed and it needs a long revaluation.

Illegal activity, since they're required under law to take action (credit card fraud would be the most likely there). Abuse of the service. Considering the EULA terms generally amount to "don't be a dick", I don't really see a problem with banning someone for breaching them.

The law requires them to discontinue all access to games that the person had legally subscribed to? What constitutes abuse of the service? How bad should it be before you lock out their access to what they had legally subscribed to?

This isn't a question of law, it's a question of ethics. The law might be fairly solid but we're asking if it should be allowed. Personally I don't believe "being a dick" should result in someone losing access to all of their games.

As discussed in many other threads, there is a fundamental difference in nature between leasing something and buying something. Games don't fit the model of leasing so it feels like total bullshit that they're framed games as license to access content with ordinary contractual terms of termination i.e. written notice within x amount of days (so no reason necessary at all) or right to terminate for breaching provisions of "not acting like a dick", whatever that means. There aren't any licensing agreements (whether it's your broadband internet, library membership or whatever) that are even remotely comparable to the current DD model as applied to games.

The issue is that 'consumer rights' and civil courts are difficult to bring to bear.

Becasue if EA, Steam or whoever pull the plug on the service they provide it is you who has to go to the pains to take them to court.

The court of public opinion alone has seemed pretty effective so far given both EA & Valve have relented/re-appraised decisions regarding people accounts once the gaming press heard about them. Also lets not forget this: -

In this day and age of inter-connectivity it's hardly a case that it's you solely alone Vs big brother. If some dude in Australia can persuade a bunch of strangers to spare enough pocket change in order to fly Gabe Newell down to look at his game mod, I don't doubt in the event that someone had their account unfairly banned/closed a public appeal outlining the facts would garner either financial and/or legal support/advice.

Personally I thought the Russian dude 'repaying drinks' bought for him by gifting his 'friends' games was dodgy as hell tbh (given his 'drinking buddies' all seemed to exist on other continents...), but that didn't stop people getting all hot and bothered over his Steam account being outright banned, and instead he ended up simply having his gifting privileges revoked once Valve looked into the matter further to the public uproar. A fair compromise I'd say to the situation of an individual whom was seemingly exploiting loopholes in the system.

One thing all this talk has led me to suspect is a shift to making EVERYTHING subscription based. That way nobody can bitch if they lose access to a game due to threatening to rape and murder a child or something.

And, to be fair, the industry has shown signs of this. DLC in general is a push toward havign a near-continuous stream of new content as opposed to a yearly burst (the old expansion pack model). Hell, BF3 + BF3:Premium was comparable to a year's subscription to an MMO if memory serves.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

...
TL;DR: Perhaps Publishers would be more willing to allow people to share and to mod their games, if they suddenly remembered they were even making games, as opposed to the increasingly popular interactive movies with which the stricter Publishing houses (Looking at you, EA) seem to be obsessed.

I'd say no. The only driving factor is money. Games creators are happy to release things (see the openness of the likes of Minecraft) and not sue everyone under the sun. However, what drives the other side of the argument? I don't think it's "artistic integrity" or "perceived ownership". It's plainly a land grab for money. :(

Kadayi, I would say if a publisher/developer wishes to over invest in a product, it's their problem, not mine as a consumer. If they put less in, it's less risk. Why try and sell gold plated tooth picks or toilet seats? Keep the production method that suits the product.